• Entrepreneurs
• Business information
• Certification
• CAFIA laboratories
• CAFIA opinions
• More information
• Consumers
• How to know the food market
• Results of CAFIA inspections
• Consumer rights
• List of risky sites
• Hoaxes
• Other visitors
• Press Releases
• Internships at CAFIA
• Public contracts

The Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority (CAFIA) in cooperation with the State Veterinary Administration (SVA) has been repeatedly inspecting honey, both in the retail network and directly at honey processors.

The CAFIA inspectors took altogether 14 samples of honey in the retail network, which were analyzed to determine adulteration by adding banned syrups based on saccharose, sugar cane or sweet corn and to ascertain the observance of honey quality parameters.

Out of 14 checked samples, 6 samples (i.e. 43%) failed to comply with prescribed requirements. Unlike results from a similar inspection carried out last year, no adulteration of honey was proven this time. None of the non-compliant samples did correspond to the quality regulations: a higher content of hydroxy-methyl-fulfural (HMF) which indicates the freshness of honey or its inadmissible overheating during the manufacturing process was identified in four cases, a non-compliant amount of diastase enzyme that is one of the quality properties was ascertained in two samples, and one sample was incorrectly labelled as “med medovicový”.

The CAFIA inspectors banned the sale of non-compliant honeys and imposed measures to remedy ascertained deficiencies.

At the same time, the State Veterinary Administration (SVA) carried out inspection aimed at honey labelling. The SVA inspectors checked altogether 49 processors who supply honey to the market. The majority of deficiencies concerned health marks (11 in total). The health mark that confirms that the product has been subjected to obligatory veterinary check and that such product is in compliance with conditions laid down by veterinary legislation had either incorrect form or it was missing. Administrative proceeding was initiated in three cases (in respect of imposing binding instruction), in the remaining cases, deficiencies were removed on the spot.

In other 9 cases, inaccurate identification of the country of origin of honey was ascertained, which again was either incomplete or it was missing. Administrative proceeding against honey processors was initiated in two cases; remaining deficiencies were removed on the spot.

This inspection was one of the joint inspections the CAFIA and the SVA cooperate on. As in the past, both supervisory bodies will keep inspecting honey.